If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, that wouldn't have happened if he'd followed the instructions of the police as he should have. Actions have consequences. Scott Olsen's consequences for his failure to obey the OPD was to have a tear Gas Canister bounce off his head.

So if you simply fail to "follow instructions" then you should have a canister bounce off of your head. No sympathy deserved. The problem with this logic is that all of those who are breaking the law in these protests are failing to follow instructions. They don't have to be somebody throwing bottles. Zathras did not make that distinction in this post.

...but when you voluntarily put yourself in harm's way while breaking the law........

So if you break the law, you deserve what you get?

Zathras did respond back to what I was saying with some more clarification although I didn't agree with some of it.

But maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Maybe this protester should have listened to his intuition. For example, I get a feeling that if I don't leave right now or agree with people, you might just throw a ban canister at my head. You are a mod and you're going around calling me a troll. Makes sense.

But maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Maybe this protester should have listened to his intuition. For example, I get a feeling that if I don't leave right now or agree with people, you might just throw a ban canister at my head. You are a mod and you're going around calling me a troll. Makes sense.

Persecution complex too, you have it all Lanie.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

It all depends on what they DO while they are protesting. Not every act is harmless just because they are protesting! Attack the cops and you get what you get, even if it's a protest. That's why only peaceful protests are legal. Otherwise, like this guy, you can get your head kicked in.

So, if you do acts of civil disobedience, do you deserve to be hurt and to possibly die?

If your act of civil disobedience endangers the lives of others, then yes. Throwing bottles and rocks takes you from passive resistant to violent mob member. When you cross that line, the Rules of Engagement change accordingly.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Keep in mind this is what Ghandi, MLK, and others did. I'm not trying to say that marine was honorable like MLK. I am saying that the protesters are using the same tactics. They do not deserve to be hurt and to die no matter how many times people in this thread are going to say they do deserve to be hurt and to die.

King and Gandhi practiced non-violent civil disobedience. Their whole moral stance was based on violating only those laws that singled them out for unequal treatment in order to highlight the injustice behind them. They didn't occupy other people's property, permit their followers to trash their cities, exhort them to violence, cover up criminal acts (including theft and sexual assault) and otherwise break every law on the books in order to make their point. In fact, both of them advocated strict adherence to the laws that governed public safety and protection of people and property during their protests. This is one of the reasons that the more radical elements of the Civil Rights movement denounced King.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Okay, so if a person is doing civil disobedience, do they deserve to be gassed out, possibly hit with the canisters, beaten up, and possibly die?

If that's the case, then it would have been justified for cops to kill MLK, Gandhi, or anybody else involved in civil disobedience.

See above.

Originally Posted by Lanie

How was it kicked off by him? Did he directly get violent with the police?

Next, that's the other thing I'm objecting to. Some here seem to think he deserved what he got because he's some sort of turncoat. I don't hear any objections to that idea.

I was the one who called him a turncoat, because of his website, which is a vile series of slanders of his former Corps members. I didn't say that he deserved to die for being one, but only that Wei only cared for those military members who turn on the rest of us. If a cop who was a former Marine was injured by a rioter, Wei wouldn't have given him the time of day.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Just following your history and combining it with stuff you say now. Good-night. Sleep tight. Don't let the Democrats bite.

Yeah, well I went too far last night. I thought by speaking civilly that I could get a point across. Then I found myself getting pissed off at how far some people were taking their positions and how they spoke to me and then I just got mean and pissy. I'm not going to change any minds like this. To me, the issue isn't so much that the rich should have money taken from them so much as it's the idea of the person on the other side of the fence is not necessarily your enemy and you shouldn't go but so far to support a cause. So yeah, I went too far last night.

...To me, the issue isn't so much that the rich should have money taken from them so much as it's the idea of the person on the other side of the fence is not necessarily your enemy and you shouldn't go but so far to support a cause. So yeah, I went too far last night.

Lanie, you have to learn that there is a distinct difference between organized, peaceful protest......and disorganized, violent mob rule.

The police can only react to what faces them. They are not psychologists or psychiatrists, and cannot look into the mind of a mob throwing bricks, rocks and bottles at them.

Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

If your act of civil disobedience endangers the lives of others, then yes. Throwing bottles and rocks takes you from passive resistant to violent mob member. When you cross that line, the Rules of Engagement change accordingly.

Ody, I don't recall even seeing your posts last night, so I wasn't addressing you. If somebody is getting violent, then yes, it provokes the police. Some of these people were saying the actions would have been justified just for "not following instructions."

Originally Posted by Odysseus

King and Gandhi practiced non-violent civil disobedience. Their whole moral stance was based on violating only those laws that singled them out for unequal treatment in order to highlight the injustice behind them. They didn't occupy other people's property, permit their followers to trash their cities, exhort them to violence, cover up criminal acts (including theft and sexual assault) and otherwise break every law on the books in order to make their point. In fact, both of them advocated strict adherence to the laws that governed public safety and protection of people and property during their protests. This is one of the reasons that the more radical elements of the Civil Rights movement denounced King.

Well, they did in fact occupy property. When somebody did a "sit in," they occupied the restaurant or other place for "whites only." They were not legally permitted to be there, so they were arrested.

When they advocated boycotting the bus system, the idea was to hurt them financially. That's what some here want to happen to the bigger banks. Imagine this. You have some pushy sales person insisting you can afford a loan on a house, and it turns out you really can't. They knew this the entire time. Instead of trying to renegotiate the monthly payment, they get the government to bail them out and they sell the house for let's say two thousand dollars. Don't you think that's bullcrap? Don't you think some of the Occupy protesters have a point? I personally knew a guy who got told that because his late aunt owed money to a nursing home, he'd have to come up with that money or they'd take the house she left him. Well, he couldn't get the money at first, but he finally got it through a bank loan. By then, they wouldn't accept it. They sold his house for like a thousand dollars. They knew they could get away with it because they'd be bailed out. Fortunately, the other person decided they didn't want the house so he got his house back with that money, but you see my point? Some institutions need to be hit where it hurts (the wallet) so they'll stop mistreating people so much.

BTW, I actually expect somebody to come in justifying the above paragraph.

I was the one who called him a turncoat, because of his website, which is a vile series of slanders of his former Corps members. I didn't say that he deserved to die for being one, but only that Wei only cared for those military members who turn on the rest of us. If a cop who was a former Marine was injured by a rioter, Wei wouldn't have given him the time of day.

I'll agree he is a turncoat. I guess there is a reason why he sees the war differently. He can object to the war without having a website about hating the marine corps. My objection was the idea that he deserved what happened to him because of the hateful things he said about marines. That's what somebody in this thread said. I don't agree with that. Now, if the guy was stupid enough to say that to the faces of some marines, I'd have more sympathy if that marine beat him senseless.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Democrats can't help biting the system that feeds them.

And Republicans often have no problem with the government assistance so long as it's for the rich, see above.